FAQ and Pet Peeves:

You can call me Judge or Ms. Adint.

I have about 2 years of judging experience thanks to my child having been into speech and debate just like you.

Please don’t shake my hand. "Hello, judge", will do to greet me.

On the big question of framework, I vote either way often.

All arguments are winnable, just provide me ample evidences with logical countering.

politeness is a plus.

Speed is good.

Overview:

I value reliable evidences and authenticity of each debater’s argument. I am open to any kind of strategy that will help you win, but round voice will not change my vote. Countering is the beauty of debate, so please counter your opponent with evidences and critical thinking skills. I will end the debate in favor of one proposition resolved only by the argument in the round. I want debaters speak their mind the way they see fit.

This is my second tournament judging, so I am not very familiar with many arguments. I am not a primary english speaker. Please be very clear as to what your arguments mean and tag all of your arguments and refutations. if you don't tag them, I may not write it properly. Like I said, I don't have much experience judging. While I know some things because my son does debate, don't assume I know anything past common knowledge. Other than that, please be confident and respectful to each other, and debate to the best of your ability! Good luck!

Hey there!

I've done parli for around 4 years now, and am fairly experienced. I'll ask for the standard stuff: signpost well, don't drop arguments, create clash, and have an educational debate. I don't weigh evidence any more strongly than logical reasoning on the principle that parli is good specifically because it forces debaters to make arguments without evidence - any kind of warrant is good as long as the logic is sound. I'll take theory arguments, but avoid kritiks.

Have a good round!

Hello, I am a first year parent judge, so I would prefer not to judge theory or kritiks. I would appreciate if your arguments were very organized and clear so that I can follow along. Also, please speak at a moderate speed. Thank you!

Summary

It’s your debate, I’m down to hear any argument. Comfortable with case/K/T/tricks/phil in roughly that order, but happy to evaluate any argument you make (including rejecting the res). As a debater, I went for a roughly even mix of K/case in tech rounds. Speed is fine if your opponents can handle it. Weighing and warranting win rounds. Be respectful to everyone in the round. Call the POO, articulate the cross-application, make the debate as explicit as possible for me. Email p.descollonges@gmail.com.

Background

I competed in parliamentary debate for six years, mostly at Nueva. I was most successful at tech parli, but also found success at both NorCal and Oregon lay tournaments (see bottom of paradigm for notable results if that matters for your prefs for some reason—it probably shouldn’t). I also debated 4 NPDA tournaments last year. I’m a sophomore at UChicago and coach for Nueva. You can reach me at p.descollonges@gmail.com. To prevent this paradigm from being too unwieldy, I’ve only included actionable preferences (i.e. preferences that have a clear impact on what arguments you should be making). Outside of these explicit preferences, I strive to evaluate all arguments fairly, but if you’re interested in my specific thoughts on an argument, feel free to ask me before/after the round (e.g. whether I personally like condo—I’m more than happy to evaluate it, but I also think condo bad is underused).

NON-PARLI EVENTS (feel free to skip if you are a parli debater!!):

I'm fine with speed up to ~300 wpm. If you're in PF, go as fast as you want. For LD, feel free to spread, I'll slow if needed. For policy, you'll probably need to cut speed, but feel free to ramp and I'll slow when I need to—just give me pen time and a speech doc.

I do not know your event. I do not know your norms. I'm sorry about that! I'll do my best to evaluate your round still. Regardless of event, I will vote on clearly articulated framework/weighing/sequencing claims ALWAYS, especially if I'm not comfortable with your event. In general, I assume defense cannot win rounds. I default to a net benefits/other offense-based framework, I'm willing to evaluate stock issues framing but am probably awful at it and need a justification for it.

My lack of knowledge about norms is not an excuse to be sketchy. I am more than happy to look up the (conviniently nationally codified!) rules for non-Parli events if something feels wrong to me. This doesn't mean I'll drop you for reading a K aff (because hopefully you're reading implicit or explicit args that breaking rules is good if there's a rule against your position); but it does mean that you shouldn't expect to get away with e.g. gross speech time violations. I'll generally defer to anything both teams seem to agree on if both teams seem comfortable and I am unfamiliar with the event, unless you try to convince me to give you a double win or something in that vein.

I am a parli person. This does not mean I don't care about evidence. I have a low threshold for ballot comments about sketchy evidence. I have a much higher, but still comparatively low, threshold for intervening on evidence ethics. I have an extremely low threshold for not voting on evidence your opponents call out as sketchy if it is sketchy. I will read cards necessary to decide my ballot (yes, this includes in PF.) I will not vote against you because e.g. you citing a specific sub-conclusion that helps you from a study that argues generally in the opposite direction unless your opponents point it out, in which case I will read the card. I will affirmatively intervene to disregard or vote down blatantly fabricated, misconstrued, or excessively powertagged evidence in compliance with NSDA evidence rules (7.4.A/B/C). I will also strive to comply with NSDA rules for formal challenges (7.2/3), but am not experienced with this procedure. Please just be ethical with your evidence.

Feel free to read my parli paradigm if you want an idea of more specific preferences! Ask me before the round if you have any questions.

PARLI:

Logistics

I hate protected time, but will grudgingly accept that some tournaments use it. It’s ultimately up to the speaker—I will not intervene if the speaker wants to take a POI during protected time. I will follow tournament rules on grace periods, but grace periods aren’t speech time—please don’t make new arguments. I will disregard them.

Call the POO. I protect in the PMR, but give the benefit of the doubt to the speaker unless a POO is called. Incorrect answers to a POO do not waive this protection. I do not protect in the LOR, because there are situations where the aff would prefer I not protect—call the POO if you want me to drop the arg. In novice/beginner rounds, I reserve the right to protect.

Please don’t shake my hand. I don’t care if you sit, stand, etc.—as long as I can understand you, you’re fine. I don't care what you're wearing.

I’ll give at least one of oral or written feedback depending on the specific circumstances of the round, defaulting to a longer oral RFD with a summary in the ballot. You are welcome to record anything I say after the round and/or request I write it out in the ballot. I will try to get substantive and substantial feedback to you in all circumstances—if the tournament bans disclosure and/or we’re running on a tight double-flighted schedule, expect a longer ballot. My preference is to give both an RFD in which I explain how I analyze the arguments in the round and individual speaker feedback, but in complicated outrounds especially, there’s a chance I won’t get to individual speaker feedback. If you’re specifically curious, always feel free to ask. I’m open to postrounding, but if I’m talking to you, I can’t change my ballot. If you think there was a genuine equity issue in the round and I've already submitted my ballot, the person to talk to is the tournament equity director, not me.

I’ll ask for any information I need for my ballot (e.g. speaker positions). No double-wins, no double-losses except in rounds with equity issues.

Speaker Points

If the tournament seeds based on speaks (speaks, -1HL, or z-score) as the first tiebreaker for teams with the same number of wins, I’ll default to 29s (or as close as possible). I’ll give 30s to anyone who impresses me, particularly with strategic argumentation. I will not hesitate to drop your score as a clear signal that I disapprove of some behavior (see equity section below), but will not go below 29 due to mistakes or perceptions of you as a “weaker” debater.

If the tournament does not seed based on speaks as the first tiebreaker, I’ll give speaks in the ~26.5-29.7 range in most rounds. You’ll get higher speaks for good strategic calls, clean argument execution, and cool extemporaneous warranting. Arguments I like that I haven’t heard before are 30s. I won’t go below 26.5 except as a statement of active disapproval (i.e. if you get a 26.5 or below, your debating was not bad/sloppy/inexperienced, it was problematic).

Equity

Please strive to be a good person in round and out of round. Be respectful to your opponents. I will stop the round if necessary to protect any participant in it. If you are uncomfortable, I’d appreciate it if you communicated that to me (or the tournament staff!) in some way.

Misgendering your opponents will result in lost speaker points at minimum and a round loss if egregious and/or intentional. This is also true for gendered/racialized/etc. negative comments or behavior. As a white man, I don’t have a great way to evaluate the exact harms of specific behaviors, so I’ll generally defer to preferences expressed by affected individuals in dicey situations and/or go to the tournament.

Regardless of current literature on the net effect of content warnings, in the context of the debate rounds, content warnings seem clearly net-good in terms of their risk-reward tradeoff. Let me know if there’s anything I can do to make the round better for you!

Case

I love case debate. I wish more people did case debate. Good case debate will make me very happy as a judge. That means clear arguments with clear impacts, good interaction with your opponents arguments, and a clear (and preferably explicit) articulation of what offense will win you the round. Warranting is also key. Arguments with well-explicated warrants backing them up will almost always beat arguments without warrants.

The best way to win a close case debate is weighing. The best way to win a close weighing debate is to do metaweighing. Please tell me whether I should prefer e.g. evidence or logic. Please explain to me how that applies to your arguments specifically. If you do this, you will win 90% of the case debates I have seen.

I’d love to see more link turns. I’d love to see more uniqueness leveraged after the PMC/LOC. I’d love to see more warrants on internal links.

CPs

Down for anything. Win the theory debate. I’ll evaluate all CP theory I can think of. I’ll also evaluate all CPs I can think of, but please have good reasons to prefer, especially if you’re reading delay, etc. Condo is fine by default. Dispo means you can kick it if there’s no offense by default. PICs are fine by default.

Advantages to non-mutually-exclusive CPs are not offense (or defense). Advantages to mutually-exclusive CPs are black swans, but I’m open to hearing why they’re offensive. Perm debates are good, but please don’t say anyone is “stealing” anyone’s advantages.

Evidence

Please do not fabricate evidence. Please do not plagiarize unless the tournament requires you to do so (please reference evidence you use rather than presenting it as original analysis). If the tournament empowers me to do so, I will check your evidence after submitting my ballot, and go to tab/equity if I discover something that seems like an intentional fabrication. Obviously, you have limited prep—mistakes are human, and I won’t hold them against you.

If you give me author’s name/date/source for a claim, you’ll likely win contests over whether that literal claim is true or not. This does not modify the strategic position of the claim in the round. If you do not give me a citation for evidence, I will treat your claim as a claim. Given that I try to be tabula rasa, this is normally fine (i.e. in most debates, it won’t matter if you cite a source for the US unemployment rate).

Ks

I like hearing good K debate! I really like hearing new shells, well-thought-out strategies, good historically-backed warranting, and solid links. I really dislike hearing canned shells from backfiles you don’t understand.

I like KvK debate. I am open to rejecting the res, I’m also open to framework. I have a high threshold on Ks bad theory from the aff, but would consider voting for it.

I’m most familiar with Marx, modern Marxists, and queer/disability theory, but I’m open to hearing anything—just explain it well.

Please have specific links that are not links of omission. Please give me a role of the ballot.

I’m not convinced the aff gets a perm in a KvK debate, but I’ll default to allowing it.

T/Theory

I’m happy to listen to literally anything. I generally prefer fairness on T and education on theory, but please don’t feel bound by that. Jurisdiction is absolute BS but I’ll vote for it.

I default to competing interps over reasonability, potential over proven abuse, and drop the argument when it makes sense. I do not default to theory being a priori, make the argument (especially if your opponents could plausibly uplayer theory). I do not understand why an OCI is not a separate shell, but I’ll listen to them. I’ll reluctantly vote on RVIs, the more specific the better. I view RVIs as making local offense on the theory sheet a global voting issue by default, but will appreciate and evaluate specific texts as well.

If an argument boils down to "did the team say the magic words," I'll default to the team that spent the most time on it in absence of argumentation on either side (e.g. what counts as an RVI). If that doesn't make sense to you, ignore it, and rely on good argumentation rather than linguistic technicalities.

Results

College: Second seed at NPDA nats '23;Mile High Swing 1 Finalist

Champion/Co-Champion: Evergreen ‘21, ‘22; Campo ‘21; TFT ‘17; Lewis and Clark ‘22; UoP ‘20; NorCal Champs ‘21, ‘22

Finalist: TOC ‘22

Semifinalist: NPDI ‘19, ‘20, ‘21

Updated Jan 31st, 2020 for Stanford

Tldr: I vote on the flow. Read whatever you want as long as its inclusive. Speed should be fine. Debate is a game so use the best strategy you can. I love theory & cps and am okay with kritiks. I don’t protect so call POOs. Be nice. Don’t shake my hand. Ask me any specific questions before the round starts.

About:

-Pronouns: she/her/hers

-I competed for Ashland High School for 4 years mainly in Parli (went to ToC my Junior and Senior year). Most of my experience was in lay debate but I prefer flow/ think it’s more fun. You do you though.

-Freshman in college so this will be my first time judging/ not debating at Stanford : )

General:

-I vote based on the flow but don’t want to do any work for you. Please weigh, collapse, extend, and be organized.

-Read whatever arguments you want to as long as their not racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.

-Debate is a game so I appreciate good, creative strategies/arguments

-I default to net benefits. If you’re using other framework please explain and justify it.

-I don’t accept shadow extensions so if something is read in the PMC it needs to be extended by the MG for the PMR to leverage it. Same with the neg.

-I do not protect against new arguments so please call Point of Orders.

-Please accept at least one question in every speech. I will vote on POI theory if it is run well.

-Tag teaming is fine but I will only flow the words from the speaker’s mouth.

-Please read interps/ texts twice. I will be very happy if you give me and your opponents a copy of the text.

Speed:

-I am fairly comfortable with speed as long as you’re clear.

-If needed I will call slow once and clear twice per speech if I can’t understand you. After that I will just put my pen down.

Case:

-I prefer AD/DA structure with uniqueness, links, impacts.

-The more specific and warranted the better.

-I don’t like voting on blippy arguments or arguments without clear impacts. If you want me to vote on a conceded argument please clearly explain its relevance/impacts.

Theory:

-One of my favorite parts of the debate as a debater. That being said, not a fan of frivolous theory just to run it and it is not likely to win you the round.

-I’m fine with anything i.e. POI theory, meta theory, 30 speaks (if extended) etc. just please don’t use it to purposely skew your opponents out of the round

-Please have all parts of the shell if you’re reading theory with clear impacts and underview.

-I default to competing interps.

-I default to drop the argument unless you specify otherwise.

-I will not vote on just a conceded standard unless it is well articulated and extended.

-Please tell me theory is a-priori so I can weigh it above case and articulate where it should be weighed if Kritiks are in the round.

CPs:

-Please use CPs to your advantage! I love them

-I’m fine with anything i.e. condo or PICs as long as you can win the theory debate

-Perms are a test of competition not an advocacy unless I am told otherwise

-If your opponents run a CP please make the debate better be fully responding it it i.e. solvency deficits, perms, disadvantages to the CP, etc.

Kritiks:

-I don’t have much experience with Kritiks but I’m fine if you run them just please be organized & clear

-I’m likely not familiar with your lit base unless it’s cap and I can’t vote on things I don’t understand so please explain

-Don’t run a K unless you have solid links

-Please tell me where to weigh it if theory is also in the round

-Not a fan of K Affs but the debate space is yours so if you run it, do it well

Be inclusive:

-Be nice!

-Please address your opponents by “my opponent” unless you know their pronouns.

-Let me know at the beginning of the debate if there’s something you need/want that can make the space more accessible for you i.e. sitting instead of standing during speeches.

-If you’re reading sensitive material please include a trigger warning in advance, i.e. before the round or before your speech.

If you have any questions you can email me at hdoyle23@cmc.edu, FB message me or ask me before the round.

Hi I am an experienced parent judge. I have a pretty good understanding of the world and economic systems. I value probability over magnitude for the most part but can be convinced otherwise. I do not want every debate to be about mass extinction or how one economic policy leads to nuclear war. I can understand theory but am not likely to vote on it unless clear abuse in round. No Ks. No speaking fast. I prefer logic over straight facts. Repeating your point does not mean that you responded to their point. Do not say that a team conceded an argument when they clearly did not. POIs are fine but do not ask more than 2 and do not be obnoxious while doing it will drop your speaks. It is fine if you choose to decline a POI but between the two partners, you have to accept at least one. CPs are fine even PICs but if you are running CP you have to prove that your CP solves better. I do buy mutually exclusive arguments through net benefits but you have a harder job to me proving that the aff does not just do the same by perming the CP. If you want to perm do it as a test of advocacy as that is easier to understand as a judge. All advocacy/rhetoric is binding do not try to kick anything. Try not to run new contentions in the second speech. I do not protect the flow. Try to use less jargon while actually debating. I can understand some of it but not all. Have fun.

I am a parent judge (software engineer) with 1 year of judging experience. I value arguments that are explained clearly and presented in a well organized flow. Speaking too fast or having a messy flow will only hurt you so try and keep your information and end goal clear.

Theories: I do not understand theories very well. If you want to run theory, explain slowly what the theory is, and why I should vote on it over case. Also clearly explain how the other team is violating your theory.

Kritiks: I do not understand kritiks so most likely if you run a kritik, I will get confused so please do not run them unless absolutely necessary.

Please be respectful to others during the round.

I am a sophomore in college and competed in a parliamentary debate in high school. I am also an experienced judge. My pronouns are she/her.

-Above everything be respectful and enjoy the debate! I know debate can be stressful sometimes so just make sure to breathe. If something in the round is making you uncomfortable, please let me know. Nobody can debate their best in a hostile environment.

-If you remember and feel comfortable in doing so, please introduce yourself with your pronouns at the beginning of your speech.

-No off-time content, you should have enough time to say it in the actual speech.

-Spreading is acceptable as long as you are clear and are not outspreading your opponents.

-Take POIs!

-Try to avoid PICs, Ks.

-Please don't abuse tech debate skills. Make sure to use words not because they seem like they sound nice but also because you understand them and they are applicable.

Looking forward to overseeing a productive and respectful round, and if you have any questions or concerns please do not hesitate to let me know!

I have taken this down because I am no longer an active judge on the circuit. If you need to contact me my email is camgrigg@icloud.com

Parent judge

(Well organized and logically laid out arguments) > (speed talking or try to win on technicalities)

Most debates come down to a few key arguments. Please lay it out for me. Don’t force me to organize your arguments nor decipher your weighing.

Be competitive, be passionate, but be respectful

Have fun!

hi! i'm sky.

please strike me if i've coached you before. i've marked many of you as conflicts, but it is impossible to get all of you when you attend multiple schools, debate academies, etc. i'll always report conflicts to tabroom.

email is spjuinio@gmail.com. add me to the email chain.

please try to have pre-flows done before the round for the sake of time. i like starting early or on time.

tech over truth. i don't intervene, so everything you say is all i will evaluate. be explicit; explain and contextualize your arguments. try not to rely too much on jargon. if you do use jargon, use it correctly. extend evidence properly and make sure that your cards are all cut correctly. tell a thoughtful and thorough story that follows a logical order (i.e. how do you get from point A to point E? why should i care about anything you are telling me? i should know the answers to these questions by the end of your speeches). pursue the points you are winning and explain why you are winning the round. remind me how you access your impacts and do NOT forget to weigh. giving me the order in which i should prioritize the arguments read in round is helpful (generally, this is the case for judge instructions). sounding great will earn you high speaks, but my ballot will ultimately go to those who did the better debating.

read any argument you want, wear whatever you want, and be as assertive as you want. any speed is fine as long as you are clear. i will yell "clear!" if you are not. my job is to listen to you and assess your argumentation, not just your presentation. i'm more than happy to listen to anything you run, so do what you do best and own it!

speeches get a 15-second grace period. i stop flowing after 15 seconds have passed.

don't be rude. don't lie, especially in the late debate.

rfds. i always try to give verbal rfds. if you're competing at a tournament where disclosure isn't allowed, i will still try to give you some feedback on your speeches so you can improve in your next round/competition. write down and/or type suggestions that you find helpful (this might help you flow better). feel free to ask me any questions regarding my feedback. i also accept emails and other online messages.

now, specifics!

topicality. it would behoove you to tell me which arguments should be debated and why your interpretation best facilitates that discussion. make sure your arguments are compatible with your interpretation. if you go for framework, give clear internal link explanations and consider having external impacts. explain why those impacts ought to be prioritized and win you the round.

theory. make it purposeful. tell me what competing interpretations and reasonability mean. i like nuanced analyses; provide real links, real interpretations, and real-world scenarios that bad norms generate. tell me to prioritize this over substance and explain why i should.

counter-plans. these can be fun. however, they should be legitimately competitive. give a clear plan text and take clever perms seriously. comparative solvency is also preferred. impact calculus is your friend.

disadvantages. crystallize! remember to weigh. your uniqueness and links also matter.

kritiques. i love these a lot. i enjoy the intellectual potential that kritiques offer. show me that you are genuine by committing to the literature you read and providing an anomalous approach against the aff. alternatives are important (though i have seen interesting alternatives to...alternatives. if you go down this route, you can try to convince me that your argument is functional without one. as with all arguments, explain your argument well, and i might vote for you). as aforementioned, tell me to prioritize your argument over substance and why.

cross. i listen, but i will not assess arguments made in crossfires unless you restate your points in a speech. try to use this time wisely.

evidence. again, please cut these correctly. i'll read your evidence at the end of the round if asked, if your evidence sounds too good to be true, or if your evidence is essential to my decision in some fashion. however, this is not an excuse to be lazy! extend evidence that you want me to evaluate, or it flows as analysis. make sure to identify the card(s) correctly and elaborate on their significance given the context of the round. don't be afraid to compliment your card(s). consider using your evidence to enhance your narrative coherence.

public forum debaters should practice good partner coordination, especially during summary and final focus. consider taking prep before these speeches because what you read here can make or break your hard work. arguments and evidence mentioned in the final focus need to have been brought up in summary for me to evaluate it. i flow very well and will catch you if you read new arguments, new evidence, or shadow extensions (arguments read earlier in the round that were not read in summary). none of these arguments will be considered in my ballot, so please do not waste time on them. focus on the arguments you are winning and please weigh, meta-weigh, and crystallize!

tl;dr. show me where and why i should vote. thanks :)

you are all smart. remember to relax and have fun!

I am a graduate of UC Berkeley. For the last 20 years I've spent my time as a software engineer focusing on security for prominent technology companies. I am new to the speech and debate community.

As a judge, I am looking for the ability to make logical and concise arguments. I get bored when too much time is spent on one topic. You should be able to summarize your thoughts, justify why they are important, and move on to the next area.

Organization is key. I prefer getting an overview of the topics to be covered first, then deep diving into the details.

I appreciate details and evidence. It gives me confidence that you've fully thought about all aspects of your topic.

In speech and debate, there is no one correct answer. Being able to preemptively identify and address weaknesses in your argument, before your opponent does, gives me confidence that you've fully thought through the pros and cons of your position. Pretending that your argument is perfect and flawless and ignoring your position's weaknesses is a negative in my mind.

Because I'm new to the speech and debate community, I don't (yet) understand the jargon and acronyms. Be patient with me.

I appreciate passion when arguing a position, but only to an extent. I place greater value on logical arguments. Too much passion or emotion without enough justifying evidence is a net-negative to me. Being overly aggressive to your opponent, or excessive confidence, is also a net negative.

I am a former high school debater who competed in parli and extemp. I look forward to being your judge, and remember that the point of speech and debate is to enjoy yourself :)

I am a first year parent judge for Parli debates. I consider effective communication and the art of persuasion as essential life skills and I'm honored to take on the role of a judge. I particularly enjoy Parli debates as participants need to think on their feet without the benefit of extensive prep.

I prefer a roadmap at the beginning as well as signposting throughout so I can follow along. Please speak clearly, respectfully, and at a speed at which I can understand - if I can’t understand your argument, then I cannot award points for it. Focus on the strength of the position you decide to take and how you formulate your arguments in favor of it. If your opponent introduces new arguments in rebuttal speeches, I expect you to let me know by raising a POO. If it is a close debate, the quality of speech delivery will decide the winning team.

Good luck and have fun!

Chill with jargon and technicalities, though if I find that the side arguing such things fails to properly lay a foundation with definitions and/or doesn't make it a voting issue in their final speech, I will most likely ignore it. Remember, jargon is not an explanation. I come into the round as a listener, not a fellow debater, so if you want to invoke jargon you must clearly define it as you would with a lay judge, otherwise I will not count it as a sufficient explanation toward whatever point you are making.

-I am friendly toward Theory if one side is making an abusive definition or unreasonable plan/CP, and I prefer it be limited to those instances.

-Please don't run Ks in Novice.

-No tag teaming. I will dock a full speaker point from members of a team anytime they do it.

-I will take every assertion made as the absolute truth until it is contested. I will accept "insufficient evidence" as an adequate response in the first four speeches (of course, if the other side did provide a sufficient warrant to their claim, they may simply point that out). I will not accept this as a response if it is first brought up in the Rebuttal speeches, and am happy to toss it out if the other side calls a Point of Order.

-The most important thing to remember is that it is the speaker's job to connect the dots between the arguments they're making and the conclusions they are drawing. I will not do it for you.

Above all be respectful, enjoy debate, and don't be afraid to lean into an argument you completely disagree with!

Ground Rules:

1. Specify the amount of time each speaker will have to speak.
2. Explain the proper decorum that participants are expected to follow, such as speaking one at a time and refraining from interrupting other speakers.
3. Clarify the process for making points of information and asking questions.
4. Outline the procedure for challenging a speaker's argument.
5. State any other relevant rules or guidelines that the participants need to be aware of.

Evaluation Criteria:

1. Will be scoring the debate, such as by taking into account the quality of arguments, delivery, and research
2. and aspects of the debate such as organization, persuasiveness, and evidence.

Hi! I'm Keerthana Routhu and I'm a fourth year studying Computer Science and Computational Math at UC Santa Cruz. I went to Irvington High School and have competed in a couple of Parliamentary Debates. When speaking, speed is fine, just make sure that it is reasonable enough for your opponents and me to understand your arguments. I like seeing roadmaps (off-time is okay), evidence, and well-structured impacts. Finally, please be polite and respectful to everyone involved in making these debate tournaments possible. Good luck!

I am a current high school debater at the varsity level. I will be flowing each round.

1. I appreciate speakers who speak slowly and clearly. Please refrain from spreading (speed-reading). If I can't understand you, I can't judge the round.

2. Please refrain from using debate theory unless it is crucial (topicalities are okay).

3. I will be keeping time but I expect debaters to do the same. You may use your phone to do so.

4. If you are going to tag-team, keep it as minimal as possible. Refrain from talking to your partner if someone is speaking (this includes your partner). Passing notes to your partner, however, is okay with me as long as it is discreet and does not disrupt the round.

5. I appreciate clearly structured contentions and sign posting for the sake of organization and clarity.

6. Whenever you mention a piece of evidence make it a priority to cite your sources.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask them before or after the round. Additionally, I will provide feedback once the round is over.

Hello! My name is Davis (he/him/his). I was a Parliamentary debater at the Nueva School for all four years in high school, and I am now a freshman in college. If I happen to be judging you in a debate event that is not Parli, some other info is listed at the bottom, and most of my preferences can apply to LD, PF, and Policy.

I think the debate space is a great way to learn about, and justify, your own beliefs. In some ways debate is a game where your strategies must be deployed effectively and strategically in order to get a ballot. Debate is also about developing activism strategies and promoting unique discourse. It is up to you to find those strategies and this paradigm will hopefully help make that choice easier for you.

tl;dr

Fine with speed - I probably will have a hard time flowing if you are spreading upwards of 250+ wpm. Go for any argument you feel is necessary—perhaps to truth test your opponents, roleplay as the state, or promote an epistemology/ontology/methodology/etc—with some caveats listed below. I will not intervene although there will be times when I might inadvertently “fact check” in my head if an argument just sounds blatantly wrong and I hope the other team will call you out on that. If not, I will accept it as true. My initial read on your arguments might have some left-leaning political bias but of course I aim to correct this and only use what is presented in round.

As a debater I primarily went for well-warranted cases and the occasional kritik. I only read kritiks that I wrote or studied intently. I think it is critically important that every argument you read is something you could explain to an expert and a ten year old. Be well-versed with the literature you are drawing from. What I mean by this is that you should not pick up a kritik your friend wrote and read it for the first time without knowing what is going on. Read it knowing with confidence that you can defend every argument within the kritik and be prepared to explain it in a POI if need be. One of the biggest portable skills in debate is being able to formulate arguments on your own; if you regurgitate warrants and arguments given to you by a peer, coach, etc it just is a really bad look. Don't read Baudrillard because you want to sound cool and tell your friends "I read Baudrillard" or because you feel the need to read a K for whatever reason. Read Baudrillard because you vibe with what he argues and you actually believe that hyperreality is more important than policy. Imo, if you think Baudrillard's arguments sound cool but you don't agree with them, don't read Baudrillard, even if it scores you a higher chance of winning the round.

I will do my best to make the round accessible for you in any which way, and ensure that the round is fair and even on both sides. You ought to explain why your strategy is inherently a productive use of time and an effective way for both teams to learn in-round if, for example, it is a K against a novice team. Please have offense, either through off/on case positions, line-by-line responses, or both. If you don't, there is a very, very low chance you will win on terminal defense. If you make fun of your opponent, or use racist/homophobic/ableist/sexist/etc rhetoric, I will drop you no with questions asked.

Burdens:

The affirmative burden, to me at least, is to prove the resolution true. In other words, provide a policy that fits under the umbrella of the resolution and explain that it can do a good thing. If the affirmative feels they can still meet their burden by rejecting the resolution because the harms of the resolution outweigh procedural fairness, I believe they meet their burden. The neg can either "disprove" the resolution and tell me that the affirmative isn’t true by explaining that there is a better alternative (ie. squo, CP, K), or simply prove that the affirmative doesn’t do something good and have a small piece of offense. This is how I will make my voting decision.

Case:

I don't dislike case debate. I think critical advantages and disadvantages can be effective. Make sure you have warrants to back up your claims. Do not tell me the economy is doing poorly and not warrant it. Specific link stories are a nice way to help me understand what your plan does/what the aff plan will do. One-off case strategies are fine. If you don't terminalize impacts, I won't do it for you—and I likely won't give the argument that much weight.

I haven't justified voting on terminal defense enough yet, so please ensure you have offense against the other team somewhere, even if it is just an impact turn. I think magnitude is probably the easiest way to win the impact debate, but I weigh all three (magnitude, timeframe, probability, not reversibility) so weighing the three against each other will help me make my decision easier. Timeframe only matters with extinction level impacts like climate change - I don’t really consider it unless magnitude and probability are mute.

CPs:

Delay/actor/other PICs are prime arguments for a theory interp to be run (and I will vote on it), but it is not an autovote. If you run a delay CP with arguments on why it is the only ground in the round I will be more sympathetic to the neg than if you just run a delay CP to be cheaty. Do with that what you will. Be condo or dispo if you want. To some degree conditionality destroys traditional aspects of case debate, but it also increases critical thinking. I would be happy to vote on theory in either direction with regards to condo/dispo.

Kritiks (Aff/Neg):

I enjoy them. I enjoy reading critical literature, and have read kritiks on the HS Parli circuit. See my note in tldr about my beliefs on when Ks should be run. In short, read a kritik you vibe with and can defend every bit of. Be an expert with the warrants and literature. While debate is gamified in many regards, the gamification is no excuse to pick a kritikal strategy that will allow you to win over an inexperienced team at the expense of your own education and knowledge production. Absolutely be creative with kritiks - try new alternatives or frameworks! All I hope for is that you extensively read the literature first.

I believe that I still have much to learn when it comes to successfully evaluating every K debate I judge, so please explain things clearly to the best of your abilities. Some thoughts:

1. I find myself most attracted to the ones that attempt to transform the way education is gained in-round. Generic Cap Ks or other generics for that matter aren't my favorite. Read an interesting alternative and I'll enjoy your Kritik more.

2. Ks being read as a way to gain an advantage over a team with less experience is cruel. While there is not a clear brightline on the front of taking advantage of another team, intent is generally obvious given the wording of the K and the way in which you read it. If you truly believe in the power of a proletariat revolution and want to read it as an alternative against a novice team, that should be reflected in the way you read the kritik. After all, don't you want to clash over it to debate the merits of such an alternative because you are truly passionate about it? If so, present it in such a way that generates clash (ie. slow down, take questions, use less jargon, spare the other team from minutiae, etc.).

3. Identity Ks are really powerful and a great way to transform the debate space, but you should not be running an identity K about an identity you don't embody.

4. If you don’t take questions from the opposing team who may be confused about your fw, alt, etc, that will look really bad. It will make sad to vote for you in that case if the other team doesn’t respond well because you likely didn’t defend it well either. Please have clear links rather than arbitrary links that apply to every round. You have 20 minutes to prepare links so they should be good. Please also leverage your fw otherwise it serves no purpose.

5. I am not the biggest fan of simply “reject” alternatives—you will likely have a harder time on the solvency level so make sure the solvency actually has a clear and effective way to solve something. If your alt has no solvency or you fail to explain it clearly enough for your opponents I won't be sympathetic towards the rest of the K.

6. Don't concede your fw.

7. I have no major opinion on structural fairness versus procedural fairness, and it certainly depends on the context of the round, but I lean slightly towards structural fairness.

8. Ks I will want to drop you for reading: Kant, Lacan, and D&G.

9. Never run more than one K in a round. Condo Ks in my opinion simply destroy any benefit from reading one K and you might turn yourself or re-link.

10. I consider myself to be neutral on K Affs at this point, but I much prefer affs that reject a resolutional actor and still relate to the res. I think fw T is a great strategy the neg should run, so long as it has a strong standards level with real voters and a TVA.

11. I don’t have too much experience with K v K debates, but if you engage in them please justify why a) your fw is preferable, and b) win any root cause arguments.

Theory:

I think theory is a great way to win debates when there is proven abuse, but theory debates often link to big-stick fairness implications trying to get a ballot with little educational value when teams go for potential abuse. I won't pull the trigger on an interp that simply says we may have lost some ground or something of the sort—show me exactly how you lost ground.

I prefer competing interpretations over reasonability. The only partially-justifiable brightline for reasonability is "must win every standard." I won't automatically drop the debater or argument - please explain to me which choice I should make. More often than not, I drop the argument. For me to drop the debater there needs to be a high threshold of abuse; run theory when you feel it is necessary to check back against proven opponent abuse.

I don't like friv T. Please refrain from it unless you are 100% certain there is proven abuse. Be prepared to debate the RVI, especially if you run something like “must use a period at the end of the plan text.” I really don’t want to vote on an RVI, but will 100% do it with bad theory that destroys the debate space (ie. must not run a CP, must not wear shoes, or something along those lines). Obviously, I won't determine if the theory destroys the debate space—the team ought to tell me it does.

Speaking:

Speaking is not that important to me. Speaker points are not a good representation of a debater's skill or persuasion, and they are too arbitrary for their own good. If you are enthusiastic, it might make me feel that you understand your arguments better which can look good perceptually. I find that some people might be shy in-round but have really good arguments - that still is "good speaking" to me.

If you laugh at your opponents, you will get lower speaker points.

Carded events - please don't spread too fast. Make sure you use CX effectively with good questions. I probably won't flow it but it could impact my perception of your arguments if you can't answer questions about your own strategy.

-----------

Be humble. Be creative. Be curious. Be authentic. At the end of the day, debate is supposed to be fun, educational, and a space to grow as an individual. Please ensure it is that way for every debater.

Please ask in round if you have any questions about my words above.

no longer active in debate! if you're interested in reading my paradigm for some reason, email me at eugxu@sas.upenn.edu and we can talk.

pop off.